Thursday, March 10, 2016

When the book is better than the movie

When the subject of books-into-movies comes up, almost everyone
I know favors the book over the film. The most often cited reason? The book
offers more depth of character and plot.

That’s not surprising when you do the math. Most books run 250
to 350 pages. The typical movie script is 100 pages long.

All the same, there’s an exception to every rule. Below is a
short list of movies I think are better than the book. Have a different
opinion? Feel free to share your thoughts.

Forrest Gump

I found the novel by Winston Groom rambling and bizarre. In
the book, Forrest is a stereotypical lug-of-a-lineman at Alabama who becomes an
astronaut and has an extended relationship with a chimpanzee. Thank God the
film’s producer kept the title and little else.

The Legend of Bagger Vance

I’m a fan of Stephen Pressfield’s historical novels. But the
film adaptation of his golf-themed book is more focused and richer in
character. An outstanding performance by Will Smith really helped. I was also
pleasantly surprised to find Robert Redford’s direction less treacly than
usual.

Get Shorty

I am messing with a demi-god in dissing Elmore Leonard. Over
20 of his novels were made into films—and I’ve loved many of them. But Get Shorty on the page seems slow and stale
compared to its screen adaptation. Chili Palmer could be John Travolta’s best
role ever—although that’s not saying much.

The Martian

My hat is off to Andy Weir. Rare is the contemporary science
fiction writer who hews to the laws of physics and resists invoking mystical
forces. Still, the novel’s dialog and narrative are stilted at times. Ridley
Scott transformed Weir’s well-intentioned effort into a captivating film.